9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to Circular No. 681 dated March 8, 1994, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 2. Interpretation of Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Applicability of Section 194C to transport contractors. 4. Validity of Circular extending Section 194C to contracts for mere carriage of goods. Analysis: The petitioners, engaged in the carriage of goods by trucks, challenged Circular No. 681, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as ultra vires articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and sections 44AE, 119, and 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Circular related to the deduction of income-tax at source under section 194C from payments made to contractors/sub-contractors. The petitioners contended that they are not transport contractors and, therefore, not liable for deduction under section 194C. The Department argued that the Circular merely clarified the legal position as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 435. The main question was the legality of extending the provision of section 194C to all transport contractors based on the said judgment. The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 194C in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 435 clarified that the term "any work" in the section has a broad meaning and includes supply of labor for carrying out any work. The court emphasized that "work" is not limited to "works contracts" and covers various types of contracts. The Bombay High Court, in subsequent cases, held that Circular No. 681 was illegal as it required deduction of tax at source under section 194C for contracts involving only carriage of goods, excluding other services. The High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Bombay, Delhi, and Gujarat concurred that section 194C does not cover professionals or contracts for mere carriage of goods. The High Court agreed with the Bombay High Court's interpretation that the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co.'s case did not specifically consider whether contracts like carriage contracts fall under section 194C. The Court found the Circular extending section 194C to transport contracts erroneous and illegal, as it misinterpreted the Supreme Court's judgment and introduced a definition of "transport contracts" not considered by the Court. The decision emphasized that the applicability of section 194C depends on specific circumstances and agreements between parties, making the Circular's generalization invalid. In conclusion, the writ petitions challenging Circular No. 681 were disposed of with a declaration that the Circular's extension of section 194C to transport contracts for mere carriage of goods was erroneous and illegal. No costs were awarded in the judgment. Judge(s): D. P. MOHAPATRA, P. C. NAIK.
|
